IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v19y2011i04p471-487_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Apples and Oranges? The Problem of Equivalence in Comparative Research

Author

Listed:
  • Stegmueller, Daniel

Abstract

Researchers in comparative research are increasingly relying on individual level data to test theories involving unobservable constructs like attitudes and preferences. Estimation is carried out using large-scale cross-national survey data providing responses from individuals living in widely varying contexts. This strategy rests on the assumption of equivalence, that is, no systematic distortion in response behavior of individuals from different countries exists. However, this assumption is frequently violated with rather grave consequences for comparability and interpretation. I present a multilevel mixture ordinal item response model with item bias effects that is able to establish equivalence. It corrects for systematic measurement error induced by unobserved country heterogeneity, and it allows for the simultaneous estimation of structural parameters of interest.

Suggested Citation

  • Stegmueller, Daniel, 2011. "Apples and Oranges? The Problem of Equivalence in Comparative Research," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(4), pages 471-487.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:19:y:2011:i:04:p:471-487_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700012948/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. T. W. G. Meer & E. Ouattara, 2019. "Putting ‘political’ back in political trust: an IRT test of the unidimensionality and cross-national equivalence of political trust measures," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(6), pages 2983-3002, November.
    2. Joseph Paul Lavallee & Bruno Di Giusto & Tai-Yi Yu & Su-Pin Hung, 2022. "Reliability and Validity of Widely Used International Surveys on the Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Denis Federiakin, 2020. "Investigating The Cross-National Comparability Of Testing Using Response Times," HSE Working papers WP BRP 57/EDU/2020, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    4. Garbe, Lisa, 2023. "Pulling through elections by pulling the plug: Internet disruptions and electoral violence in Uganda," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue OnlineFir, pages 1-16.
    5. Dmitriy Poznyak & Bart Meuleman & Koen Abts & George Bishop, 2014. "Trust in American Government: Longitudinal Measurement Equivalence in the ANES, 1964–2008," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 741-758, September.
    6. Boris Sokolov, 2019. "Sensitivity Of Goodness Of Fit Indices To Lack Of Measurement Invariance With Categorical Indicators And Many Groups," HSE Working papers WP BRP 86/SOC/2019, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    7. Büchi, Moritz, 2016. "Measurement invariance in comparative Internet use research," MediArXiv 42h39, Center for Open Science.
    8. Kim, Jessica & Fallon, Kathleen M., 2023. "Making Women Visible: How Gender Quotas Shape Global Attitudes toward Women in Politics," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 19(4), pages 981-1006.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:19:y:2011:i:04:p:471-487_01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.